Trump Moves to Cancel Nearly $1 Billion in Federal Spending as “Pocket Rescission” Fight Intensifies

WASHINGTON — September 29, 2026. President Donald Trump’s administration has moved to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously appropriated federal spending through a controversial budget mechanism known as a pocket rescission, triggering a new separation-of-powers dispute with Congress.

The White House says the action targets spending the administration considers “wasteful and harmful.” Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, a Republican, says the formal $810 million rescission package is unlawful, while the Government Accountability Office says pocket rescissions are not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act. White House

Official White House Data

On September 25, the White House announced that Trump was using a pocket rescission to eliminate “another nearly $1 billion” in federal spending.

The administration says the targeted money was being spent on immigration-related programs, education programs for non-citizens, DEI-related grants, climate programs, housing counseling, health research and other initiatives it opposes. White House

White House — President Trump Takes Historic Action to Eliminate Wasteful and Harmful Spending

Why Two Numbers Appear: $810 Million and Nearly $1 Billion

The White House publicly describes the broader action as involving nearly $1 billion.

Sen. Susan Collins says the formal package delivered to Congress totaled $810 million.

Collins said the administration submitted the package “without warning or consultation” and accused OMB of trying to undermine Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. White House

$567 Million — HHS Services for Non-Citizens

The largest category listed by the White House is $567 million in HHS services for non-citizens.

According to the administration, those funds had supported NGOs and programs serving:

refugees;
asylum seekers;
other non-citizens;
unaccompanied migrant children.

The White House itself uses highly political language in describing the category, stating that under Trump’s border policies the “illegal alien invasion is over.” White House

That wording is the administration’s characterization.

$2.1 Million — Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service / Global Refuge

The White House says $2.1 million went to the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, doing business as Global Refuge.

The administration describes the group as an “open-borders NGO” and says its budget more than quadrupled during the Biden administration, with much of the increase coming from government grants. White House

The phrase “open-borders NGO” is the White House’s political characterization.

$40 Million — Southwest Key Programs

The White House also identifies $40 million connected with Southwest Key Programs, which operated shelters for unaccompanied migrant children. White House

This is one of the items for which there is separate DOJ documentation.

In July 2024, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit alleging that Southwest Key, through its employees, engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual abuse and harassment of unaccompanied children in its shelters. Those were allegations in a civil complaint, not criminal convictions. Department of Justice

In March 2025, HHS stopped placing children in Southwest Key facilities and moved the remaining children to other shelters. DOJ then dismissed the civil case in light of HHS’s action. Department of Justice

DOJ — Southwest Key Civil Lawsuit

DOJ — HHS Stops Placements at Southwest Key Facilities

$3.9 Million — Endeavors Inc.

The White House says $3.9 million went to Endeavors Inc.

The administration highlights services provided to migrant children including:

pet therapy;
horticulture therapy;
music therapy.

It also identifies former DHS CFO Chip Fulghum in connection with the organization. White House

The video host repeats those points and adds sarcasm about the purpose of the therapy programs. That sarcasm is commentary, not an official finding. Supreme Court APPEAL! 🚨 New Yo…

$15 Million — DHS Programs for Non-Citizens

The White House identifies $15 million in Biden-era DHS programs that provided services to non-citizens.

According to the administration, those services included:

legal services;
mental-health services;
cultural orientation;
counseling;
housing;
child care;
schooling;
transportation;
health care;
language classes. White House

The White House itself characterizes these programs as providing “welfare to illegal aliens.” That is the administration’s wording.

$10 Million — Immigration-Related Legal and Advocacy Programs

The administration identifies another $10 million in DHS programs involving immigration-related legal services.

The White House lists examples including:

$876,000 to the National Partnership for New Americans;
$450,000 to Instituto del Progreso Latino;
$300,000 to the Immigration Institute of the Bay Area;
$300,000 to the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. White House

The White House describes those programs in highly critical terms and accuses some recipients of helping migrants navigate the immigration system.

Those characterizations are administration claims, not independent court findings.

$25 Million — Education Programs for Non-Citizens

The White House identifies $25 million connected with the Department of Education’s Special Programs for Migrant Students.

According to the administration, previous funding supported activities including:

an LGBT youth summit for migrant students;
“Therapy for Latinx” workshops;
mental-health programs involving DACA-related stress;
programs involving the nonprofit Immigrants Rising. White House

The administration argues that those programs had moved away from what it considers legitimate educational purposes.

$15 Million — DOJ Community Relations Service

The White House identifies $15 million for the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service.

The administration says CRS had about 60 employees assigned to racial and ethnic tensions, civil disturbances and related conflict-resolution work.

The White House criticizes the agency for materials including a training video titled “Respecting Identity | Law Enforcement Training and the Transgender Community.” White House

The White House goes further and describes the office as ideological and politically biased. Those descriptions are administration commentary.

$9 Million — Climate-Related Debt Relief

The White House identifies $9 million connected with the Treasury Department’s Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation Act program.

The administration says the program provided debt relief to foreign countries in exchange for environmental or climate-related commitments and argues that the spending provided no direct benefit to U.S. taxpayers. White House

That conclusion represents the administration’s policy position.

$10 Million — Minority Business Development Agency

The White House proposes rescinding $10 million appropriated for the Minority Business Development Agency.

The administration argues that some MBDA programs directed grants based on race or ethnicity and cites a 2024 federal court ruling concerning a racial presumption used in funding decisions. White House

The White House describes the agency’s approach as race discrimination.

That legal and political characterization should be distinguished from the narrower fact that some MBDA eligibility rules were challenged in court.

Audit Finding — $15.4 Billion of $16 Billion Reviewed

The White House cites a 2025 audit in which $15.4 billion of $16 billion in reviewed transactions — about 96% — were categorized as involving duplicate transactions, missing or inadequate documentation, or transactions that should not have been approved based on the underlying activity. White House

This is important because the video compresses that finding into a broader accusation that money was simply being handed out.

The official description is more specific: it concerns duplicate transactions, documentation deficiencies and approval problems. It does not, by itself, mean that 96% of the money was stolen or criminally fraudulent.

$70 Million — International Education Programs

The White House identifies $70 million connected with international education programs.

The administration argues that some of those programs supported projects outside their intended educational mission, including doctoral research on queer and transgender community-building abroad. White House

The video host calls this “woke” spending. That phrase is commentary from the host, not an independent factual finding.

$28 Million — HHS Research

The White House identifies $28 million in HHS research programs that it considers wasteful, duplicative or ideological.

Examples listed by the administration include:

$428,000 to improve access to transgender care for “BIPOC and rural diverse youth”;
$467,000 to study how Medicaid gender-affirming-care policies affected use of hormones and surgery;
$130,000 to study ACA insurance coverage and gender-affirming care;
$98,000 to study barriers to primary care among sexual-minority people of color;
$500,000 for University of California research involving patient safety and health-care quality for transgender patients;
$50,000 for a research agenda addressing racism in emergency medicine. White House

These amounts and descriptions come directly from the White House statement.

$56 Million — HUD Housing Counseling

The White House identifies $56 million associated with HUD housing-counseling programs.

The administration names several nonprofit recipients, including:

UnidosUS;
National Urban League;
Housing Action Illinois.

The White House criticizes those groups for positions involving immigration, racial equity and DEI. White House

Again, the funding amounts and recipients are factual claims from the administration; terms such as “radical,” “far-left” or “discriminatory” are White House characterizations.

$5 Million — HHS Office of Minority Health

The White House also identifies $5 million connected with the HHS Office of Minority Health.

It lists examples including grants for:

“Multisystem Compassionate Care and Healing for Black Youth”;
health-equity programs involving Latinx, Black, sexual- and gender-diverse, refugee and rural communities;
$1.2 million for research on youth mental-health disparities;
$2.1 million for a health-equity leadership initiative at George Washington University;
$1.5 million for work related to redlining and structural racism. White House

The White House characterizes these programs as race- and sex-based DEI spending.

What a “Pocket Rescission” Is

A rescission occurs when the president asks Congress to cancel previously appropriated money.

Under the Impoundment Control Act, Congress receives a period in which it can approve or reject the request.

A pocket rescission occurs when the request is made so close to the end of the fiscal year that the money can expire before Congress has a meaningful opportunity to act.

That is the core legal issue in the current dispute.

GAO Says Pocket Rescissions Are Illegal

The Government Accountability Office takes a clear position.

GAO says a pocket rescission is illegal because the Impoundment Control Act does not permit the executive branch to withhold funds through their expiration date merely by submitting a late rescission request.

GAO says that if Congress does not affirmatively approve a rescission, the money must be made available for prudent obligation before it expires. Government Accountability Office

GAO — What Is a Pocket Rescission and Is It Legal?

GAO — Impoundment Control Act Resources

Susan Collins Calls the Package “Unlawful”

Sen. Susan Collins, Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, strongly criticized the September 25 package.

Collins said Congress received an $810 million pocket-rescission package without warning or consultation.

She accused OMB of intentionally withholding the funds for months and called the move a usurpation of Congress’s appropriations authority.

She also cited GAO’s conclusion that pocket rescissions are unlawful under the Impoundment Control Act. Senate Appropriations Committee

Senate Appropriations Committee — Susan Collins Calls Pocket Rescissions Package Unlawful

What the Video Host Adds

The video analyzed by Midtown Tribune goes considerably beyond the White House statement.

The host argues that:

members of Congress are participating in a “grift” involving federal grants;
some NGO funding amounts to money being “laundered” through nonprofit organizations;
Congress should impeach Trump if lawmakers believe his refusal to spend appropriated funds is unconstitutional;
the president should retain substantial discretion over whether appropriated money is actually spent;
the Impoundment Control Act itself may be unconstitutional;
substantially more federal spending should be rescinded.

He also uses phrases such as:

“corrupt cash”;
“leftist propaganda groups”;
“open borders NGOs”;
“transgender illegal aliens.”

Those are the host’s political descriptions and arguments. They are not findings by GAO, DOJ, a federal court or Midtown Tribune. Supreme Court APPEAL! 🚨 New Yo…

Where the Video Matches the White House

A significant portion of the video’s numerical material comes directly from the White House statement.

That includes:

$567 million for HHS services for non-citizens;
$2.1 million for Global Refuge;
$40 million involving Southwest Key;
$3.9 million involving Endeavors;
$15 million in DHS programs;
$10 million in immigration-related programs;
$25 million in migrant education;
$15 million for DOJ Community Relations Service;
$9 million in climate-related debt relief;
$10 million for MBDA;
$70 million in international education;
$28 million in HHS research;
$56 million in HUD counseling;
$5 million tied to the HHS Office of Minority Health. White House

So the amounts themselves are not merely inventions of the video host: many were explicitly published by the White House.

The host’s conclusions about those programs are a separate matter.

The Constitutional Question

The dispute ultimately extends well beyond the individual grants.

Congress controls appropriations under its constitutional power of the purse.

The executive branch is responsible for administering the laws and spending programs Congress has enacted.

The White House argues for a broader presidential ability to rescind or withhold certain appropriated funds.

GAO says the Impoundment Control Act does not permit the president to accomplish a cancellation simply by withholding money until it expires. Government Accountability Office

That separation-of-powers question may ultimately prove more consequential than any individual grant listed in the rescission package.

Video

The original video analyzed for this article is titled “Trump just CANCELLED almost $1 BILLION in Corrupt CASH!”

Watch the original YouTube video

Key Facts

The White House announced a pocket-rescission action involving nearly $1 billion in federal spending. White House

Susan Collins says the formal package received by Congress totals $810 million. Senate Appropriations Committee

The White House itself publicly identified the major spending categories and many of the individual grant amounts discussed in the video. White House

DOJ separately confirms that it filed a civil lawsuit against Southwest Key alleging sexual abuse and harassment of children in its shelters; HHS later stopped placements there. Department of Justice

GAO says pocket rescissions are unlawful under its interpretation of the Impoundment Control Act. Government Accountability Office

Collins likewise calls the administration’s September 25 package unlawful. Senate Appropriations Committee

The video host’s accusations involving “grift,” corruption and congressional motives are his commentary and are separate from the official spending figures.